Adaptive Treatment Strategies With Survival Outcomes: An Application to the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Using a Large Observational Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequences of treatments that adapt to a patient's changing condition over time are often needed for the management of chronic diseases. An adaptive treatment strategy (ATS) consists of personalized treatment rules to be applied through the course of a disease that input the patient's characteristics at the time of decision-making and output a recommended treatment. An optimal ATS is the sequence of tailored treatments that yields the best clinical outcome for patients sharing similar characteristics. Methods for estimating optimal adaptive treatment strategies, which must disentangle short- and long-term treatment effects, can be theoretically involved and hard to explain to clinicians, especially when the outcome to be optimized is a survival time subject to right-censoring. In this paper, we describe dynamic weighted survival modeling, a method for estimating an optimal ATS with survival outcomes. Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a large primary-care database, we illustrate how it can answer an important clinical question about the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We identify an ATS pertaining to which drug add-ons to recommend when metformin in monotherapy does not achieve the therapeutic goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".